Opinion 25-102
June 26, 2025
Digest: A judge who has hired a citizen of another country as a personally appointed law clerk may write a letter to the appropriate immigration authorities in support of the law clerk’s visa renewal application, verifying the requested factual details of the employment.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); Opinions 18-128; 15-92(B); 14-33; 12-10; 10-07.
Opinion:
The inquiring full-time judge has hired a recent law school graduate for a clerkship starting later this year. The new law clerk is a citizen of another country, and thus must apply for a work visa from federal immigration authorities.[1] The law clerk has asked the judge for a “work letter describing the professional capacity of the work, purpose of employment, length of stay, and educational qualifications prior to commencing employment in chambers.” The judge’s local Human Resources office has declined to provide such a letter; their position is the judge “would need to write the letter” because “this is a personal hire.” Accordingly, the judge asks if he/she may write the requested letter on judicial letterhead. Since the judge’s job offer to the law clerk is “official” rather than “personal” in nature, the judge asks if he/she may omit the “Personal and Unofficial” designation from the letter. Finally, the judge asks if the letter should be addressed to the specific government agency or “to Whom it may Concern.”
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]). A judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance any private interests and may not voluntarily testify as a character witness (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).
While a judge may only testify as a character witness if under subpoena or in response to an official request from an entity such as a court, district attorney, probation or parole department, no such rule bars a judge from testifying as a fact witness (see e.g. Opinions 18-128; 12-10).
As we recognized in Opinion 14-33 (citations omitted):
In applying Section 100.2(C), the Committee has distinguished between “a strictly private situation, e.g. a letter of reference on behalf of a job applicant known to the judge,” and a letter supporting an individual’s application to a government agency “to make a decision with substantial public implications.” In the latter situation, much greater caution is needed to avoid creating an appearance that the judge is voluntarily testifying as a character witness or improperly lending the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests before a government agency.
Thus we have advised that a judge may not, at the request of a friend who is seeking permission from a government agency to enter a foreign country, provide a letter of recommendation for submission to the government agency (id.).
By contrast, we advised that a judge may write a letter to the American Consulate in a foreign country attesting to facts in support of his/her relatives’ proposed international travel to visit the judge in the United States (see Opinion 15-92[B]). We explained in Opinion 15-92(B) that the judge:
will essentially be attesting to the judge’s personal willingness and ability to be host to the judge’s family members if the visa application is granted. Thus, the judge is offering to assume personal responsibility for his/her visiting family members. These circumstances present little risk the judge is appearing to voluntarily testify as a character witness or improperly lending the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests before a government agency.
Here, too, under the circumstances presented, the judge’s proposed letter cannot reasonably be seen as an effort to lend judicial prestige to advance private interests or to improperly interfere with a government agency’s determinations. To the contrary, the judge is the law clerk’s future employer, and thus is in the best position to provide the relevant facts to the agency in support of the law clerk’s application for a work visa (see Opinion 15-92[B]).
Thus we conclude that, where a judge has hired a citizen of another country as the judge’s personally appointed law clerk, the judge may write a letter addressed to the appropriate immigration authorities on the judge’s judicial letterhead (see id.). As the judge has hired the law clerk to assist in the judge’s official judicial duties, and the work visa is necessary for the law clerk to perform those duties, the judge need not mark the letter as “Personal and Unofficial.”
Finally, the judge should not address the letter “To Whom It May Concern” unless the addressee is a person or entity who regularly appears before the judge (see Opinion 10-07).
[1] The judge refers to the application as a “visa renewal,” so the appointee is presumably already in the United States on a student visa and/or a work visa.